"The Ivy League ---Just as dumb as everyone else" -- thoughts on the proposed post-season basketball tourney

I read a couple days ago that the Ivy League is on the verge of implementing an annual post-season basketball tournament

After 100 years or so, you think you know a conference...

Every Division I conference is granted single automatic bid for the conference champion to participate in the annual NCAA Men's basketball Tournament ("March Madness").

Conferences are allowed to designate the terms by which their champion is determined.  Originally, it was pretty sensible. A conference champion was the team with the best record in conference play.  In the event of a tie, tie breakers or some other means determined the champion.

The Ivy League has been smart and awarded their bid to their regular season champ.

The Ivy League system for breaking ties was exceptionally well designed --- the teams tied for the league would play each other in a single game ---winner takes the bid;  Both teams get a SOS bump.  The team that makes the tourney might end up one seed higher than they would have been ranked before the game; The loser would stand a better chance of getting into the CBI or the NIT or Bob's Fishmarket's Off-brand Post-season Tournament with a higher seed than they would have had without the game.

It made sense.  It was smart.  It was what you expect from smart people. 

Now it appears they are just as dumb as the rest of us.

It appears they will be using the new post-season tournament to determine which member of their conference will use the conference's automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament,  just like every other NCAA Division I basketball conferences.

Why is this dumb you may ask? 

 Let me tell you...

What you are giving up when you let a post-season tourney chose your champion

In college basketball, when you send your best regular season team,  you are usually sending a team that has lost 3 to 11 games out of 27-31 games.  So that team will have won roughly 59 to 90% of their games over the course of the season.  (Usually far closer to the 80-90% range...)

A team that wins more than the other teams in their conference is not necessarily more talented...although they can be... but they always are more skilled at winning.  

They have figured out how to go on runs at the right time.  They have figured out when a burst of hustle can create a turnover that destroy's an opponent's confidence.  They can smell blood in the water when a game is on the verge of turning.

Conference tournaments allow a twisted ankle or flu outbreak to flush a season of hard work down the toilet.  It invalidates all the hard work your student athletes put in learning to give consistent, smart, focused effort.  The very things college is supposed to encourage and develop are not rewarded by giving an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament to a team that sucked all season, only made the conference tournament because everyone was invited, and had 2-3 good games.

So it screws the students who have practiced the lesson of competing every day. It steals from them.

Those kids have earned that berth.  They have earned the right to compete against the best of the collegiate ranks. They have earned the right to potentially have a bad game on the biggest of stages, not have the right stolen to prop up a small-time tournament.

We wouldn't steal opportunities from are own kids, so why is this acceptable?

I would hope that thought would be enough to get school presidents and athletic directors rethinking that policy, but I am jaded enough to see that as smart as all of those people are, their attentions are on more compelling matters than sports minutia.  So they are given to groupthink and rely on conventional wisdom instead of actively thinking through peripheral sports matters such as these.

So let me give them a reason that touches closer to home.  Collegiate sports are just advertisements for a university.  A conference membership is losing money and  losing exposure when they allow their champion to be replaced by one of their dog teams.

It is one thing for a conference above the mid-major level to have a "winner take all" post-season tournament that reassigns their bid to one of their bad teams who got hot.  

There are 347 Division I teams.  There are 65 teams in the 5 football power conferences (The ACC, SEC, PAC-12, Big 12, and Big Ten).  Those 65 dominate college recruiting. 

The worst team in a power conference is more physically talented than most of the other 282 other schools at the DI level.  If that power 5 dog of a team finally figures out how to win, they will be dangerous in the NCAA tournament because they got hot and (for the NCAA Tournament) have really good talent.

I would argue even from the next conference ---Big East --- downwards, the worst teams in these non-power conferences do not have the talent to go on deep runs in the NCAA tournament.

Further, the NCAA Tournament selection committee seeds the teams a conference send to the tournament based largely on their resume.

Let me put the implications of this in perspective.

RPI =  a bunch of crap used to prop up the power conferences

RPI is a statistic used to compute the relative strength of teams and conferences vs. each other.  It is a very limited and frankly, stilted measure, but it is well-established as numbers the NCAA selection committee uses to evaluate teams for the tournament and widely accepted. 

Let's take a look at the last 5 years.

RPI 2012-16
Conference	2015-6 (so far)	2014-5	2013-4	2012-3	2011-2	Average
Big 12	1	1	1	5	3	2.2
Big East	2	2	4	3	2	2.6
Big Ten	6	4	2	2	1	3.0
ACC	4	3	5	4	6	4.4
PAC-12	3	5	3	6	10	5.4
Atlantic 10	5	7	6	7	7	6.4
SEC	9	6	7	8	4	6.8
MWC	9	11	10	1	5	7.2
AAC	7	8	8			7.7
MVC	15	12	11	9	8	11.0
WCC	17	9	9	10	11	11.2
CUSA	18	16	13	11	9	13.4
Horizon	14	15	14	12	14	13.8
MAC	13	10	12	18	17	14.0
CAA	10	18	15	24	15	16.4
Summit	12	20	17	19	16	16.8
Sun Belt	19	19	19	15	19	18.2
MAAC	23	21	16	14	18	18.4
Big West	11	13	22	21	26	18.6
Ivy	26	14	18	23	13	18.8
Patriot	26	17	20	17	22	20.4
WAC	28	30	21	13	12	20.8
Ohio Valley	20	24	24	16	21	21.0
Southern	16	23	30	27	23	23.8
Atlantic Sun	29	29	23	26	20	25.4
Northeast	32	25	26	20	24	25.4
Southland	22	27	27	25	28	25.8
Big Sky	27	26	25	28	25	26.2
America East	24	28	29	22	29	26.4
Big South	30	22	28	29	27	27.2
SWAC	21	32	32	31	31	29.4
MEAC	31	31	31	30	30	30.6

(data from realtimerpi.com)

Over that period the Ivy League's RPI average was very similar to that of the MAAC, Big West, and Sun Belt Conferences.  All three of those other conferences use a post-season tournament to assign their NCAA tournament bid, so they will allow us to look at this decision by the Ivy League clearly.

Evaluating basketball peer conferences to the Ivy League

Here are the per year conference champions and the conference's representatives for the NCAA tournament for the Ivy league and their basketball peers.

2014-15
Conference	school	rec	reg. seas.	tourney	t. Record
Sun Belt	Georgia State*	24-9		14 v. 3	1-1
MAAC	Manhattan^	19-13	16-13	16 v. 16	0-1
	Iona*	26-8	24-7	-	0-1
Big West	UC-Irvine^	21-12	18-12	13 v. 4	0-1
	UC-Davis*	25-6	24-5		0-1
Ivy	Harvard*	22-7	21-7	13 v. 4	0-1
2013-14
Sun Belt	UL^	23-11	20-11	14 v.3	0-1
	Georgia State*	24-7	25-8		0-1
MAAC	Manhattan^	25-7	22-7	13 v. 4	0-1
	Iona*	22-10	20-9		0-1
Big West	Cal Poly^	13-19	10-19	16 v. 16	1-1
	UC-Irvine*	23-11	22-10		0-1
Ivy	Harvard*	26-4		12 v.5	1-1
2012-13
Sun Belt	WKU^	20-15	16-15	16 v. 1	0-1
	MTSU*	28-5	27-4	11 v. 11	0-1
MAAC	Iona^	20-13	17-13	15 v. 2	0-1
	Niagara*	19-13	18-12		0-1
Big West	Pacific^	22-12	19-12	15 v. 2	0-1
	LB St.*	19-13	18-12		0-1
Ivy	Harvard*	19-9		14 v. 3	1-1
2011-12
Sun Belt	WKU^	15-18	11-18	16-16	1-1
	MTSU*	25-6	25-5		2-1
MAAC	Loyola^	24-8	21-8	15 v. 2	0-1
	Iona*	25-7	24-6	14 v.14	0-1
Big West	LB St.*	25-8	22-8	12 v.5	0-1
Ivy	Harvard*	26-4	26-4	12 v. 5	0-1

So The Ivy League's champion has been seeded #12, #14, #12, and #12 in the last four years.  They have turned that into a 2-4 NCAA tourney record.

The other three conferences have had a team besides their regular season champion be given the conference bid 10 out of 12 times. 

10 out of 12 times their champion was displaced.  That should be jarring to you.

Based on that sample, the Ivy league can expect their best winners to lose their bid in the Ivy League post-season tournament roughly 82.5% of the time --- let's say 1 out of 5 years the champ will keep the bid.

And it gets worse.

Those replacements have been seeded #15, #16, #15, #15, #16, #16, #13, #14, #13, #16 and they combined for a record of 2-10 (the two wins came in the 16th seed vs. 16th seed play-in game...The NCAA tourney's equivalent of the overweight fan's halftime half-court shot attempt).

The two times their actual champions survived the post-season conference tourney without dead legs, colds, or fluke plays taking them down, they were seeded #12 and #14 and went 1-2. 

(It should be noted that two of their champions who were displaced had strong enough wins during the season to earn at-large bids, but the committee punished them by making them play a matching seed for a play-in game. Both schools lost in the play in round, so 0-2.)

Conceptually what you should get is it is very bad to be seeded 14th -16th.   We will cover this in a second.

Why NCAA tournament seedings matter

Here are the records of seeded teams in their round of 64 matchups over the last 19 years.

1996-2014
matchup	record	percentage
1 v.16	0-76	0.0%
2  v. 15	3-73	3.9%
3 v. 14	8-68	10.5%
4 v. 13	16-60	21.1%
5 v. 12	32-44	42.1%
6 v.11	27-49	35.5%
7 v.10	33-43	43.4%
8 v. 9	35-41	46.1%

It's a statistical bitch slap to be a 16th seed.  You get a participation ribbon.

A 15th seed is only slightly better. A 14th seed has about a 10% chance of survival. A 13th seed is double that.  Then a 9th to 12th seed are fairly good odds for an underdog.

Why is this?

Most media types who follow NCAA basketball are familiar with the basketball concept of  "The Seven Power Conferences" even if they call them something else.  Those are the 5 football power conferences plus the new Big East and the Atlantic 10.  Those conferences are considered elite because they regularly earn multiple berths into the NCAA tournament.

Usually the top 12 teams seeded as top 3 seeds in the 4 regions in the NCAA tournament are largely comprised of the top 2 teams in those 7 conferences---their champions and the team that they edged out for the title.  (Well there is a little more to it...You could probably subtract the SEC and Atlantic 10 runner ups and you maybe throw a Gonzaga in there. ...)

The point being that the top 12 teams are usually not only super talented, but also know how to win as a team.   The next 20 or so teams? (The 4th, 5t, 6th, and 7th seeds?)  Usually almost as talented, but with tragic flaws that make them very beatable.

"They have a dominant center...but they lost their starting point guard a month ago and their backup went down last week.  Will their 5'6" walkon freshman 3rd stringer be able to bring the ball up the court?"  That kind of thing...

Champions from the 25 conferences beneath the Power 7 tend to feature teams heavy with upperclassmen with one or two lesser stars who might get drafted by the NBA who make their teams dangerous.

Those kinds of champions are not usually going to beat the top dozen teams, but they are more than capable of knocking off a middling power conference squad in a 4th to 7th seed, because they are the sounder squad and the more experienced winners. (If you caught something there that sounds like I have a major problem with NCAA seeding philosophy...It's because I do. An article for another day.)

Here is a compressed view of the odds to make things clearer.

Seeding	Records	Odds of winning
14-16	11-228	4.8%
13	16-60	21.1%
8-12	127-177	41.8%

As I was saying earlier, the NCAA selection committee judges any school a conference gives an automatic bid to by that team's basketball resume for the year.

When you swap a proven conference champion from the lesser 25 for a crap team that only beat your best in the tournament because of an injury ....or due to the fatigue of playing 3 games in rapid fire succession ----something a champion usually isn't forced to do in the NCAA Tourney --- you turn your seeding from a likely 12-14 seeding to a 15th or 16th seed.  Your odds of seeing the next round drop from at high as 40% down to potentially 0%.

You move from the competitive seeding tier to the semi-competitive one or from the semi-competitive one to the participatory ribbon tier.

This not only costs the conference exposure, it directly costs the conference money.

The NCAA Tournament pays a team a tourney share for each game it participates in.  This means each time you win and earn the right to play another game, you get another share of the big pot of TV money.

Forbes estimates a share today is worth $1.65 million.  Shares add up, as this excellent article by the Washington Post explains.

Most of the lesser 25 conferences earn a share a year for their single team that makes the tournament and gets whacked. 

Using their current methodology, the Ivy League earned 6 shares in 4 years while their basketball peer-level conferences earned a 3-14 record, seventeen shares, which divided by 3 equals 5.4 shares.

OK, financially that doesn't look like a huge difference.   It's only $990,000 of direct tourney money the Ivy league would have potentially surrendered.

(Now it could have been $10.89 Million, if the Ivy league had been able to maximize their setup and get their second best team in and properly seeded as well by tweaking strength of schedule, but I get the fact that the Ivy League doesn't appear all too concerned about strength of schedule --- they likely weigh it appropriately vs. the hardship on their student athletes...)

The Ivy peer conferences also had the dumb luck to send the second worst team to the tourney two years out of our five year sample skewing the difference.  By propping up their stats with a totally underserved win in a play-in game vs. an even mangier dog, these conferences were gifted two shares (what divides down to another $660,000 per school) with their fancy participation ribbons.

 Let's be clear if I haven't been.  Those games are not really part of the tourney.  No viewer gives a crap about the "first four" in the tourney---especially the 16 vs. 16 matchup.  Most do not even watch them.

You have to think about the value added.

Which of the four conferences looked most competent over the last 4 years? 

Which conference's teams looked the most dangerous?

Which is most likely to have earned fans among the teens going to college today?

That is the value of the NCAA Tournament---promotion of your brand nationally.

Playing a conference tournament to decide who will represent you is like choosing to accept a "participation trophy" for the NCAA tournament each year. 

A lesser 25's dogs are not going to win anything.  They will never be the Cinderella of the tournament.

It wastes the open mindedness and goodwill of the viewers.  Sending your dogs just earns a conference the contempt of TV viewers.

Certainly you chose what exactly you want to value, but if the 2-3 best Ivy League schools chose to ramp up their OOC schedules with stronger teams from the bottom 5-10 conferences, there is a fairly good chance an Ivy without a post-season tournament might send two teams to the NCAA Tournament fairly regularly with both participating Ivy teams seeded in that #12/#13 sweet spot where they can do some damage.

Now I have been a little unfair to the Ivy League in that there are some valid reasons to consider a post-season tournament.  There really are.

My point is that it would be smart not to use it to determine who gets your automatic bid. 

Use it to showcase teams for the NIT and the other tournaments and to excite alumni, but don't fall into the trap of burning your chance to advance in the NCAA tournament. 

One tournament is out facing to the greater public and one faces in to people who already have a vest interest in the Ivy League.  Don't make the mistake everyone else makes and sacrifice the more important tournament to prop up your less important one.

All I am saying is...Just be smart about it.

With the conference powers at polar opposite ends and Baylor sneaking, is it time for OSU, TCU, and Tech to act?

I have covered the positions of the Universities of Texas and Oklahoma in the last two articles.  UT is against status quo-affecting expansion.  OU is not in as strong of a long-term position and wants supplemental recruiting help (making adding the University of Houston desirable) and a championship game.

Baylor is doing what they do and being sneaky.  They hope to get UH in to bind UT to the conference long term.

Baylor and OU leaders filling 2 of 3 slots on the Big 12 expansion committee (West Virginia has the third slot) created a warm environment for UH to drum up support.  UT allegedly forced the issue by pushing UH now as team #2 in an expansion effort capped at two members.  (How does this work?  "Will Kansas State who might have accepted Cincinnati and Memphis for Memphis recruiting vote for Cincinnati and Houston as the only likely expansion in the next 3-6+ years, knowing likely little recruiting help is on the way? Or will they vote down expansion until next time?")

Right now TCU and Tech are on the expansion sidelines.  

Tech appears to be thinking voting with UT is their best long term position.  It may or may not help them ---but it definitely doesn't hurt them.

TCU is likely looking at things and thinking they want a 12 member league for split divisions and a title game, but they don't want to get on UT's bad side and aren't too excited about Houston either.

Realistically OSU is probably out of the power conferences if OU leaves without them.  OSU wants to keep OU around while trying to be impartial.  They will likely vote with OU, though.

All of these schools could easily be screwed if OU and/or UT leave.

It might be a really smart time for this trio to acknowledge that working together in an effort to deliver a tolerable, impactful 2 team expansion is worth doing.

I am going to begin with the end strategy, but acknowledge there are a lot of steps that would need to be addressed first (---The first of which being going to the members of the expansion committee hat in hand and asking them to bless your efforts.  This strategy won't work if they get uppity about their time being wasted.  You have to be up-front. If the rumors of Cincinnati and Houston potentially nearing being presented for a likely unsuccessful vote are true, their work has been contorted a bit.  Plus Memphis losing their coach might change the positions of several voting schools.  Ask for a small window of time to build an alternative.  One week to find a pair that everyone will support, otherwise the conference votes on the committee's suggested pair --- as reportedly tweaked by UT.)

The end goal? In seven days, to get 8 firm votes to add BYU and SDSU.

BYU would get their sundays off, but would eliminate sports content from their network. SDSU would be in as long as they promised not to beat the conference membership to death with requests for more western members and they sink a lot of their TV share into reducing their obscene 28:1 student teacher ratio that diminishes the school's academic reputation.

If both schools are willing to comply, they are absolutely the best candidates for addition in the next few years.

Good enough?

Why them?  Two reasons.

1) They hit every need of the conference.  This conference need Kings. They are the only two potential Kings this conference can get today.  They add more then 10M people to the footprint and add more than 1 timezone, satisfying TV's alleged desires.  TV won't have any problem with this duo even though they are western. They allow a single flight west in each sport by 4-6 of the league's members.  Central and western divisions would ramp up the chances of UT or OU winning the central division each season (good for the league).  A zippered conference with 2 OOD rivalry games would allow all state rivalries to continue undisturbed and for the conference to maintain great strength of schedule vs. other power conferences.  (I've written it before ---given the Big 12's "school clustering" running up the central US, this conference would do very well to be zippered into divisions by the addition of a western division.) OU could play SDSU OOD for one "value" game helping OU with their supplemental recruiting issue. Heck UT could too.  This pair allows UT and OU to agree to forget about Houston for now.

2) SDSU didn't make the cut because no one in the Big 12 WANTS to travel out west*.   This mindset not only normally takes SDSU off the board, but also hobbles BYU's appeal and their chances as they are likely judged as either a football-only option (a single flight in one sport) or paired with a much weaker candidate in CSU that offers much shorter travel.  If you wanted to look at this strategy of bringing them back into the discussion, in coaching terms, there is "less film on SDSU".  If you want a group to accept a totally different conclusion than the one their handpicked committee arrived at, I think it has to have different names than those discussed ad nauseum.  SDSU's early elimination over travel "ickyness" gives this pairing fresh legs at this moment.

(*To me, a very shortsighted argument.  Adding this duo means 1 trip west a year in football and each Olympic sport for some Big 12 schools.  That's it.  And not even for all of the Big 12 schools!)

Who is traveling west?....Well...TCU, OSU, and Tech first and foremost.  Probably with  KSU.  You can't ask others to "sacrifice"  if you aren't willing to do so yourself.

The bottom line with this for our hopefully bold trio is if UT and OU take Kansas and bolt, there is no more impactful addition the conference could make than adding BYU and SDSU. 

If the big 3 leaves the Big 12, there is no guarantee whatsoever that BYU will see what remains as better than independent status.  It may be unlikely they chose to join what remains. 

Any version of the Big 12 that remains will be centrally based.   It won't consider SDSU without a good "bridge fanbase" like BYU.

So if this doesn't happen soon, if not now even, it probably doesn't happen.

If it doesn't get done, it is probably a bad future for one or all of  OSU, TCU, and Tech.

Fortune favors the bold.

Tech and TCU could approach UT with the idea. They make sense because they are UT allies and frankly if OU gets pissed about no expansion and beats the GOR,  leaving in a year or two, that puts UT in a bind.  UT's boosters will demand realignment movement to keep pace...and that could force a decision that leaves one or both of the UT Texan allies behind.

The case to make to UT is straight forward,  "UT boosters and leadership do not want Houston." (The rumors suggest both parties didn't like UH to start and feel kind of insulted/angered by UH in the recent past.)  "We get that."

"We have always supported UT's positions.  We feel the conference needs 12 starting this year.  We want BYU and SDSU to reach 12. We are here, hat in hand, asking for your support this.  Will you back our alternative proposal?"

I think that is a play UT would totally back. It is respectfully posed. UT has no horse in that race and as long as THEY do not have to play BYU in football, UT leadership may judge that it is an expansion that won't negatively change their plans at all.  In fact it may be see as a big positive.

If UT and Tech are in, along with OSU and TCU, you already are half way to admission.  You only need 8 total votes to pass it.  I don't think any Big 12 schools are going to vote against a pro-expansion UT's vote, but if you want to count the votes...

I think OU and West Virginia would be in as they are generally pro-expansion.  While it is no cupcake Big 12 North, a Central/West split would allow West Virginia to retain the better attended games they kind of enjoy while ridding their schedule of tough road trips like TCU and Tech. 

Baylor may be slow to surrender it's UH advocacy, but they are pro-expansion and the conference's long term odd are better with BYU in.

Kansas and Iowa State would probably OK anything that on the surface appears likely to extend the life of the Big 12 even if Baylor hold out.  There is your 8 votes.

Then it passes and everyone's happy.  Then down the road future realignment can be about discussions of adding lesser candidates in pursuing markets because the core issues will have been addressed.

=======================================================================

Post Scripts: I had a couple of things I wanted to add to this article.

What about BYU and Houston?

I have suggested in the fairly recent past that the best two team expansion the Big 12 could do would be BYU and Houston.  I said that because I don't think a two all-sports school expansion is a smart move for the Big 12 at all.  It doesn't begin to satisfy all the needs of this conference.  No two schools totally work.  4 to 6 is better given the conference's needs.

I think if you are dead set on getting two, one of the two has to be the only candidate who is undeniably a not only power conference member-level candidate, but a strong one at that. 

BYU. 




Here's a picture from the all-powerful Googler that pulls up under "BYU Dominates"...Who are they playing?  ...ahem...Cincinnati.

BYU is better than at least 50% of the current members in power conferences and their ceiling over the next 20 years may be top 5-10.

The very thought that the Big 12 would ever consider BYU as a football-only add to avoid travel makes me shudder.   Do they not see BYU makes the NCAA tournament every year and usually advances?  That alone is 2+ shares.




I know, Jimmer...Where is the love for BYU basketball??

As far as Houston in the other slot, my thought was that slot was earmarked for OU's needs to keep them in the conference.  It was mostly about who could give OU the supplemental recruiting they need to stay at a top 12 level.  Houston, Memphis, SDSU or one of the Florida giants could do it. But Houston offers OU it's traditional recruiting territory.  It is "easy". (Well, not to get voted in.)

I have said repeatedly I liked Phi Slamma Jamma and the Southwest Conference, but that isn't why I put them in the 12 slot.

The Big 12 leadership has stuck to realignment cw in the past.  Realignment cw says SDSU is far away and far away in a bad direction (the west).  That means they are "too far away".  (Get it? Get it? "two far away"? Eh...nevermind...)

It is a three hour flight from Austin to San Diego and a 5 1/2 hour journey from Austin to Morgantown, WV and a 4 1/4 hour trip to Cincinnati.  But San Diego is too far... because it is in the west.

(Not like Miami or Florida State.  They are close enough....)

If BYU was coming in, the Florida giants UCF and USF would be distance scratches. That made school #12 a two school race in my mind.

Houston and Memphis are close and I felt pretty sure Fuentes would be gone.

So why is SDSU potentially viable today?

DO I need to show you the helmet again?

Kidding.  (A little.)

I knew SDSU was tough sell due to travel.  I thought the Big 12 membership would discount them in a 4-6 team expansion and totally overlook them if they followed realignment cw and insisted on a two team expansion.

As I have thought about it though, I realize SDSU as a candidate may have some legs now that they did not two months ago.  Houston is somewhat a caustic choice for many schools (more so than even I thought) and that stirs the pot and may make schools take another look at things.  Memphis has likely lost much of it's luster as a candidate with Fuentes gone.

Frankly buyer's remorse may be sitting in a little on Cincinnati, the school alleged to be in the priority add slot as team 11--- Do you really want Cincinnati, the "Temple" of Ohio, over BYU, the "Notre Dame" of Mormons? Doesn't that sound like a bad decision?  They are a very "safe" add,  not a sexy one.

Cincinnati is a second tier Ohio brand. BYU is a first tier brand across the western US and due to their missionary efforts, all over the world.

This decision screams "Wrong thinking!"

One wonders what kind of advice the old Big East would have given the Big 12 as they passed on Joe Paterno's calls for a northeastern conference and let King Penn State float out there for years...

If you decide BYU needs to be the priority, not Cincinnati, why not pair BYU with San Diego State?